Opinion Editorial | |
| Wednesday, October 7, 1998 | |
Even Losing Votes Help Advance Issues |
As we approach Election Day 1998, both major parties are moving to shore-up
their bases. For Republicans, this means bringing a tax cut up for a vote;
for Democrats, an increase in the minimum wage. It matters little whether
the legislation passes, for it is a no-lose proposition. If the legislation
passes, supporters can tout their success; if it fails, they can assail
their opponents for thwarting the will of the people. Either way, supporters
get an election issue. On September 26, the Republicans brought their tax cut to a vote in the
House. It passed, but will likely die in the Senate. A few days earlier,
on September 22, Democrats brought a minimum wage bill to a vote in the
Senate. With little advance preparation and following a minimum wage increase
that took effect just last year, there was never much chance that this effort
would succeed, and it didn't. By a vote of 55 to 44 the Senate voted down
the minimum wage bill on virtually a straight party-line vote. Although these efforts may appear to be futile gestures, they are not.
Not only do they energize party activists, but in many cases they are just
the opening round of a multi-pronged strategy. For example, at the state
and local government level there are often ballot initiatives designed to
implement locally programs that cannot pass in Washington. The efforts
that go into a losing struggle in Washington, however, can often provide
research, arguments and energy to local activists, so that the effort is
not wasted. A case in point is the minimum wage. Having failed for many years to
get an increase in the federal minimum wage, supporters of a higher minimum
wage turned to local initiatives. These initiatives generally call for
a "living wage" to be required in government employment and contracting.
Typically, a city or county will insist that companies they do business
with pay their employees some arbitrarily-defined "living wage",
set well above the minimum wage. Baltimore, Boston and Los Angeles are
among the cities that have "living wage" ordinances. In November, supporters of the "living wage" will bring their
campaign to the Washington suburbs. Voters in Montgomery County, Maryland
will have the opportunity to vote on a requirement that companies doing
business with the county pay their workers at least 130 percent of the poverty
level income for a family of four. That would be $21,382 this year or $10.28
per hour. Of course, the impact of such a requirement is inherently limited. Most
companies involved in government contracting already pay well above the
minimum wage. Those few that don't are usually service providers that can
avoid increasing wages for all their workers by setting up subsidiaries
just for government contracting work. Ironically, insofar as these "living wage" campaigns work,
they end up hurting many of those they claim to help. By increasing government
labor costs, either taxes must rise or spending must be cut. Reduced spending
often falls on social services, while the higher taxes often hit the poor
hardest. That is because local government tax systems tend to be regressive,
relying more on sales taxes than income taxes. In the end, the effectiveness of such efforts in achieving their stated
goals is less important than giving activists an opportunity to stay active.
It helps keep issues alive and keeps the ball moving forward until political
conditions at the national level improve. And in some cases, a local initiative
can even spark a national debate, as so many California state initiatives
on taxes, immigration and race have done. For these reasons, even losing
efforts can be successful. Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis,
October 7, 1998. Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security | Debate Central | Contact Us Dallas Headquarters: 12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800 - Dallas, TX 75251-1339 - 972/386-6272 - Fax 972/386-0924
|